(PC) Nunez v. San Joaquin County Jail ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE J. NUNEZ, No. 2:22-cv-00885-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he filed an application to proceed in 19 forma pauperis (ECF No. 6). 20 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 21 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required 22 by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency 23 having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing 24 fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Screening Order 25 Plaintiff’s complaint, signed May 20, 2022, names the San Joaquin County Jail 26 Classification and Medical Departments as defendants and alleges the following: 27 On Sep. 20, 2021 I was booked in County Jail at San Joaquin. I was placed 28 in ad-seg solitary confinement against my will for no disciplinary reason. I’m told 1 I’m placed here cause I am a Southern Hispanic Sureño gang member. I’m here suffering a mental health crisis, I’ve caught [a] sta[ph] infection – M[ ]RSA on 2 both of my legs and was not [given] proper medicine cause I still suffer from it, months, till this day. We are not given equal [privileges]. We cannot do 3 programs, church, daily showers, daily recreation, Prop 57, milestone credits, 4 programs for early release, proper medical, mental health, jobs, trades, all the jail has to offer. We are singled out based on our race when surrounding jails do not 5 treat us this way. . . . . 6 . . . We have no safety concerns. We can house with other races white 7 blacks, native, anybody. . . . It’s cruel and unusual punishment and its racist. 8 ECF No. 1 at 3. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s allegations cannot survive screening. 9 1. Conditions in Administrative Segregation 10 The allegations in the complaint are too vague and conclusory to state a cognizable claim 11 based on the alleged conditions of confinement in administrative segregation. If plaintiff wishes 12 to pursue an Eighth Amendment claim based on the restrictions in administrative segregation, he 13 must plead facts that (a) more clearly describe the restrictions and (b) show that those restrictions 14 were punitive and not permissible “regulatory restraints” justified by security considerations. See 15 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979); Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 16 2004). 17 2. Mental Health Crisis and Staph Infection 18 The allegations regarding plaintiff’s mental health and medical needs are also too vague 19 and conclusory to state a cognizable claim for relief. If plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim that he 20 was denied adequate mental health or medical care, he must plead facts showing that a defendant 21 acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Castro v. County of Los 22 Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (noting that such claims, if brought by 23 an inmate not yet convicted, arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause). 24 3. Denial of Privileges Because of Race 25 The allegations that plaintiff was denied the same privileges as other inmates on the basis 26 of race are also insufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief. To state a cognizable claim 27 under the Equal Protection Clause, a prisoner “must plead intentional unlawful discrimination or 28 allege facts that are at least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent.” Monteiro v. 1 Tempe Union High School District, 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, plaintiff alleges 2 he was housed in administrative segregation because of his gang affiliation. Although plaintiff 3 alleges it was “racist,” he has not pleaded facts actually showing that his placement or treatment 4 in administrative segregation was because of his race. He has also not clearly specified how he 5 was treated differently from similarly situated inmates solely because of his race. 6 4. County/Individual as Defendant 7 If plaintiff wishes to name San Joaquin County as a defendant for any of his claims, he 8 should note that a municipal entity or its departments is liable under section 1983 only if plaintiff 9 shows that his constitutional injury was caused by employees acting pursuant to the 10 municipality’s policy or custom. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 11 280 (1977); Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Villegas v. 12 Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass'n, 541 F.3d 950, 964 (9th Cir. 2008). Local government entities may 13 not be held vicariously liable under section 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of its employees 14 under a theory of respondeat superior. See Board of Cty. Comm'rs. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 15 (1997). 16 If plaintiff wishes to name an individual as a defendant, he must show how that defendant 17 personally participated in the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. See Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 18 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if 19 he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do 20 that causes the alleged deprivation). 21 Leave to Amend 22 In any amended complaint, plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging 23 new, unrelated claims. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he 24 bring unrelated claims against multiple defendants. Id. 25 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 26 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 27 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 28 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 1 |} F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 2 | being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 3 | 1967)). 4 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 5 || requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 6 || background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 7 || amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 8 | and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 9 || actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 10 | which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 11 Conclusion 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted; 14 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 15 accordance with the notice to the San Joaquin County Sheriff filed concurrently 16 herewith; 17 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days 18 of service of this order; and 19 4. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this 20 action. 21 || Dated: November 2, 2022. 22 23 □□□ EDEMA □ EDMUND F. BRENNAN 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28